Aspecto Operativo

In 2004 a preliminary research was conducted by Telos and Motivaction which aimed to broaden consumer behaviour research by including everyday routines of social practices in various consumption domains next to variables such as environmental values, awareness and knowledge84_.

The research was conducted to search for both individual and contextual variables that explain sustainable consumer behaviour. Based on the literature the following conceptual model (Figure 7.1) served as a guideline for the empirical research.

On the basis of value statements the respondents were divided into three sustainability segments: high, medium, low. There was a clear relation with the other elements (parts B-D) of the sustainable awareness indicators. Respondents in the ‘high sustainability’-category had more knowledge of sustainability issues and of sustainable alternatives (part B), they were more willing to pay extra for a sustainable product (part C), and they felt more personally responsibility for achieving a sustainable society (part D).

84 _{The research conducted by Telos and can be seen as one of the predecessors of the Contrast research}

programme. Sustainable awareness A: Sustainability Values B: Knowledge of: - sustainability - behavioural alternatives C: Personal involvement - environmental concern - willingness to act - willingness to pay D: Responsibility Performed sustainable behaviour in six consumption domains - Food consumption - Energy use - Housing - Tourism - Ethical investment - Mobility Social environment

For each of the six consumption domains a small number of questions regarding performed routines were asked to measure the performed sustainable consumption behaviour. Based on a regression analysis it was concluded that the four elements (A-D) in the above described conceptual model were able to explain 56% of the variance in portrayed consumer behaviour (RIVM, 2004). However, because only a small selection of the questions were used to measure the relation between sustainable awareness and performed sustainable behaviour the coefficient is only indicative.

A more important conclusion from this research is that the extent to which consumers perform sustainable behaviour varies significantly per consumption domain (RIVM, 2004). In the report a division is made between the differentiation (spread of the performed behaviour within a consumption domain) and the sustainability level of the domain as a whole (see Table 7.1). For the domains of everyday mobility and tourism this means that, in 2004, on the one hand the performed behaviour is relatively unsustainable when compared to the other domains, and on the other hand the differentiation between the respondents is low. The authors indicate that the minimal differentiation within these domains is probably related to the quantity of products on offer: when there is ample choice it becomes easier to act sustainable and the performed behaviour is more likely to differ (ibid.) (see also Paragraph 3.4.2).

However, the differences between the various consumption domains are not that large that people portray highly sustainable behaviour in one domain and highly unsustainable behaviour in the next. Citizen-consumers who attach great importance to sustainable development behave more environmentally friendly than those who find sustainable development of no or less importance.

In addition to the research in 2004, a preliminary consumer research was conducted by the Contrast research group in 2007. This research was part of the ‘Sustainability Monitor 2007’, a yearly investigation of the motives and barriers of Dutch consumers for sustainable consumption behaviour85_{. While the Sustainability Monitor provided worthwhile insight into (the motives of)}

sustainable consumer behaviour in various consumption domains, the most interesting aspect of the survey was related to abovementioned RIVM study. With regard to the transition phases of the various consumption domains, Figures 7.2 and 7.3 largely confirm the expectations expressed by the RIVM study of 2004.

85 _{The sustainability monitor is conducted on a yearly basis by the Internetwork on Sustainability (see www.}

insnet.nl). This specific internet survey was conducted amongst 1,359 respondents (92% response rate).

Table 7.1. Differentiation and level of sustainability per consumption domain (adapted from RIVM, 2004, p. 106).

Stage of the transition process in the consumption domain

- +

Differentiation within the domain - tourism, mobility energy

There are two aspects of these figures which are worth noting. First, the perceived quantity and quality of the sustainable products and services on offer differs substantially per consumption domain. The quantity of sustainable products on offer, when compared to regular products, is considered (very) sufficient by only 10% of the respondents for holiday trips and by 15% for sustainable cars. In comparison, in the domain of food consumption the quantity is considered sufficient by over 40% of the respondents of the survey. Also, generally speaking the demand on

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sustainable food products Sustainable houses Sustainable clothing Sustainable cars Sustainable trips to holiday destinations

What is your opinion on the quality of the following products when compared to regular products?

much better quality better quality similar quality (much) worse quality I do not know

Figure 7.2. Consumer perception of the quantity of products and services on offer in 2007 (n=1,265, Insnet, 2007). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sustainable food products Sustainable houses Sustainable clothing Sustainable cars Sustainable trips to holiday destinations

What is your opinion on the quantity of the following products when compared to regular products?

amply sufficient sufficient limited very limited I do not know

Figure 7.3. Consumer perception of the quality of products and services on offer in 2007 (n=1,265, Insnet, 2007).

offer, when compared to regular products, is considered limited or very limited by the respondents for all the domains. Second, a large proportion of the respondents found it difficult to assess the quantity and especially the quality of the sustainable products and services on offer. This is shown by the large proportion of respondents who answered ‘I do not know’. It is likely that this percentage can be seen as an indication of familiarity with sustainable products and services in a certain consumption domain. Not surprisingly, in those consumption domains with less perceived quantity of sustainable products, the familiarity with regard to the quality of sustainable products was low as well (indicated by the higher proportion of respondents answering ‘I do not know’).

In sum, the previously expressed expectation by the RIVM that the tourism and mobility domain are still in the first transition stage(s) is strengthened by the outcome of the Sustainability Monitor 2007 (at least for the categories holiday trips and sustainable cars). The quantity of products, when compared to regular products, is considered highly insufficient, and the respondents are unfamiliar with the specific quality.

7.3 Methodology

In order to meet the aims stated in Paragraph 7.1 a quantitative survey among Dutch citizens was conducted. This survey investigated consumer concerns and sustainable consumption behaviour in the five following consumption domains: tourism mobility, everyday mobility, clothing, housing and food consumption86_{. However, in this chapter we will primarily focus on the results within}

the domain of everyday mobility and we will not elaborate on the specific results within the four other domains.

The research was performed by Motivaction, the same market research bureau who conducted the preliminary research in 2004. Motivaction’s online marketing panel, containing over a 100,000 panel members, was used to bring in the respondents.

The field research was conducted between 11th _{of July and 4}th _{of August 2008. The survey started}

with twenty questions about general consumer attitudes and concerns in relation to sustainable development (general dispositional lifestyle element). The following segments contained questions with regard to each of the five consumption domains (conjunctural specific lifestyle element). By and large, the domain-specific segments contained questions on domain-specific consumer concerns, an identification of portfolios, an assessment of the supply on offer (sustainable alternatives), and an assessment of provider strategies. For the domain of everyday mobility five sustainable alternatives were investigated (elaborated in Paragraph 7.6). The citizen-consumer assessment focused on issues of usability, reliability and availability of the innovations discussed.

Because of the length of the questionnaire it was decided to send out the questionnaire in three blocks with a time interval of one week. Block A consisted of the general concerns and everyday mobility; Block B consisted of clothing and tourism mobility; Block C consisted of food consumption and housing. Since the overall aim of the Contrast-survey is to analyse and compare consumer behaviour in different domains it was essential that the same respondents filled in all the three blocks. To spread the number of drop outs evenly among the blocks, a third 86 _{The questions used, layout and form of the survey was the result of a combined effort by the whole project-}

of the respondents received the blocks in the order of ABC, another third in the order of BCA, and the final third in the order of CAB. In total 2,906 respondents had filled in one or more parts of the questionnaire; Block A was filled in by 2,242 respondents, Block B by 2,302 respondents, and Block C by 2,288 respondents. Of the total number of respondents 1,594 had filled in all the three questionnaires blocks (drop-out rate is therefore 45%).

An important methodological point is that the survey is highly dependent on the self-reported behaviour and behavioural intentions of the respondents. Instead of an ‘impact-oriented analysis’ which measures actual consumer behaviour, this chapter must predominantly be seen as an example of an ‘intent-oriented analysis’ with all the uncertainties that come with it (see also Gatersleben et al., 2002; Poortinga et al., 2004).